How many American fighter pilots never scored a victory?

[NTGray]

This may be a short-lived thread, but it's worth a shot.

Given that it is a truism that most of the productive results in any endeavor come from a relatively small number of participants (the old "80 percent of the work is done by 20 percent of the people"), I have often wondered how many American fighter pilots ever took off on at least one combat mission, and how many of those pilots never scored even one victory.

My guess (just a guess, no support) is that only about 30% of all American pilots ever scored even one victory, and 70% never did. And then I suspect that more than half of all victories were scored by the small number of aces, while all those who scored between one and four victories accounted for less than half of all enemy planes shot down.

But I would like very much to know whether I am in the ballpark, or completely unconnected to reality.

In another thread there was some discussion of the total number of American pilots who went through fighter training, versus the total number of fighter pilots who scored even one victory, but the number who completed training is probably a lot more than the number who actually flew one or more combat missions. But nobody over there was able to answer my specific question. Does an answer exist, or will that particular truth remain forever unknowable?

 

[33k in the air]

According to a statistic published in the manual for the old computer game Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, 5% of pilots accounted for 40% of the air-to-air kills.

I remember reading somewhere that 10% of fighter pilots accounted for 90% of the kills, but alas, I do not recall where I read that, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

 

[NTGray]

According to a statistic published in the manual for the old computer game Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, 5% of pilots accounted for 40% of the air-to-air kills.

I remember reading somewhere that 10% of fighter pilots accounted for 90% of the kills, but alas, I do not recall where I read that, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

Both of those stats sound plausible, but if you are able to find anything more specific and verified it would be great.

 

[don4331]

The statistics contradict each other: If top 5% account for 40%, the next 5% need to be <40% (or they would be part of the top 5%). So, top 10% couldn't be better than 79.999%.

But that that's lies, damn lies & statistics 101.

 

[33k in the air]

The statistics contradict each other: If top 5% account for 40%, the next 5% need to be <40% (or they would be part of the top 5%). So, top 10% couldn't be better than 79.999%.

But that that's lies, damn lies & statistics 101.

Yeah, I noticed that when I came across the second figure.

I still have the manual for Chuck Yeager's Air Combat around somewhere. The game is from the time period when computer games typically came with detailed and nicely printed manuals. The CYAC manual is spiral bound. (I still have the manuals for Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Red Baron, Red Baron II, European Air War, Aces of the Pacific, and Aces of the Deep. All of these are reasonably good reference books in their own right, which is one of the reasons I hung onto them long after I stopped playing the games. The two Red Baron manuals are also aesthetically pleasing designs.)

 

[GregP]

The Statistical Digest of World War Two says we graduated 102,907 single-engine pilots during the war. And 90,533 multi-engine pilots. That's Table 47 numbers for all theaters.

I have Report 85 (not from the Statistical Digest) in Excel format, and it is a list of all awarded aerial victories on the AAF. My copy is pretty good, but likely no more than 98% correct. It shows 15,805 aerial victories awarded to 7,319 different pilots. So, slightly over 8% of all single-engine pilots scored 100% of all the aerial victories, leaving 95,588 pilots, or about 92%, who didn't score a victory. There are also some number who stayed stateside and didn't GET to combat that are not broken out. If you look carefully at the tables in the Digest, you will see many simply do not agree with one another and have errors that amount to several thousand victories / pilots, sorties / etc. Sometimes they break out air and ground victories and sometimes they don't. If there is a grand total single number, I'm guessing it is combined air and ground victories, but that is not stated anywhere I can find right now.

Looking at Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for WWII, we see 9,291 aerial victories, mostly in the Pacific, where dogfights with large numbers of aircraft almost didn't happen, scored in 284, 073 action sorties, 9,820 of which engaged enemy aircraft. Without specific data to confirm it, I'd estimate that the number of pilots who didn't score a victory was pretty close to the number of actions sorties that didn't engage enemy aircraft. We see 284,073 action sorties and only 9,820 of them engaged enemy aircraft, from which they scored 9,291 aerial victories. These numbers are from Table 1. That means 3.3% of Navy action sorties scored all the victories, and that doesn't even take into account all the non-action sorties. Each sortie was one pilot or, in a very few cases, two pilots where they were flying, for instance, a PBY Catalina and the crew somehow managed a victory. For the most part, it would be one pilot per sortie. I have no table telling me how many Naval Aviators were trained during WWII, so the above are all percent numbers for Navy pilots.

It is a pretty safe bet to say that most Navy pilots didn't score a victory, and that something less than 3.3% of them scored all the aerial victories, compared with somewhere around 8% of all USAAF pilots who scored a victory.

Recall that Naval air combat was NOT big combat formations, but was rather usually 1 vs. 1, 4 vs. 4, or 4 vs. 8 combat. There weren't any 1,000-plane raids from carriers or Naval ground bases, and the main difference between the USAAF's 8% and the Navy's approximately 3% of pilots who scored aerial victories was opportunity … a target-rich environment by comparison between the two services goes to the USAAF … not to the Navy.

In the Navy, you were hoping to attack your target without air opposition and were conversely hoping to find the enemy before they attacked YOU somewhere. In the USAAF, you generally knew you were going to be opposed by fighters, sometimes in large numbers, and were GOING to be shot at by AAA, which caused more damage than anything else.

You numbers may vary, like your EPA mileage estimate.

Cheers!

 

[special ed]

According to a statistic published in the manual for the old computer game Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, 5% of pilots accounted for 40% of the air-to-air kills.

I remember reading somewhere that 10% of fighter pilots accounted for 90% of the kills, but alas, I do not recall where I read that, so take it with a grain or two of salt.

I have remembered reading Yeager saying that and/or seeing him in a video interview saying the same. At the time, thought 10% was low but after reading accounts from others and talking with recent veterans tend to believe it.

 

[special ed]

I like to refer to actor /comedian George Gobel who was kept stateside as an instructor his entire USAAC time. Quote, "No Japanese plane got past Tulsa."

 

[Admiral Beez]

I still have the manual for Chuck Yeager's Air Combat around somewhere. The game is from the time period when computer games typically came with detailed and nicely printed manuals.

As one born in 1971 I'll say those were a golden age of flight sim vids. My favourite made up mission on CYAC was myself in a MiG-17 vs. A half dozen MiG-15s with myself place high above on their six. I'd dive down, shoot up a couple and then use my superior speed to dive up and try again, or escape.

 

[GregP]

As one born in 1971 I'll say those were a golden age of flight sim vids. My favourite made up mission on CYAC was myself in a MiG-17 vs. A half dozen MiG-15s with myself place high above on their six. I'd dive down, shoot up a couple and then use my superior speed to dive up and try again, or escape.

Dive up? I get the "try again" part.

New maneuver?

 

[33k in the air]

As one born in 1971 I'll say those were a golden age of flight sim vids. My favourite made up mission on CYAC was myself in a MiG-17 vs. A half dozen MiG-15s with myself place high above on their six. I'd dive down, shoot up a couple and then use my superior speed to dive up and try again, or escape.

I am of the opinion that CYAC still to this day comes the closest to recreating the look and feel of WW2 gun camera footage -- the way the aircraft moved, the pieces flying off after bullet strikes, etc., all evoked gun camera footage very well, despite the graphic detail being primitive compared to today.

 

[NTGray]

It is a pretty safe bet to say that most Navy pilots didn't score a victory, and that something less than 3.3% of them scored all the aerial victories, compared with somewhere around 8% of all USAAF pilots who scored a victory.

If correct, that would mean that my guess that 30% of pilots scored all the victories is actually way too high, and that more than 90% never scored a victory. I am prepared to believe it, but I sure would like to see something from official records to give it some support. Can you cite a source for those percentages?

 

[GregP]

Naval Aviation Combat Statistics of World War Two. I attached it below. Lots of tables, but the Navy does NOT save the same statistics as the USAAF saved, so comparing them is a bit of an art. The pdf for the USAAF is the Statistical Digest of World War Two, and I attached it, too.

For the USAAF, they have the numbers of pilots that started, the number that failed, and the number of graduates. There is no break-out for how many stayed in the States and how many went overseas. I'm estimating it is about the same as the number of aircraft that went overseas versus the number of aircraft we had. But ... that estimate is no more than my best guess. The Navy doesn't tell you how many pilots were trained, and you have to look at the stats as YOU see fit. I would say of you add up effective sorties and noneffective sorties, then you have the number of sorties. From there you can find the number of sorties that engaged enemy aircraft and the number shot down. From there it is your own analysis that will almost certainly be picked apart or second-guessed. You can also look at losses if you want. People tend to focus on losses to enemy aircraft, but there are losses to enemy aircraft, losses to enemy AAA, and operational losses, such as a loss on a repositioning flight, or a plane on patrol that ran out of fuel or got lost and disappeared. Operational losses are always more than you would think, but are rarely talked about. For fun, check out the losses for Hellcats for the entire war.

Lots of reading to do! I have most of the tables in Microsoft Excel, but the primary sources generally make everyone feel better about the accuracy of the tables.

Don't forget to read the corrections to the data at the front of the documents. Several of the tables have summary math errors in them, and there is almost no way to state where the error is. If the sum is off by 1 or 2, who is to say which number is wrong? I certainly don't have the source data from which these documents were constructed.

In any case, here are two documents for the USAAF and USN / USMC.

Cheers!

 

[Capt. Vick]

Answer: Most

 

[Just Schmidt]

Dive up? I get the "try again" part.

New maneuver?

Boom and boom?

 

[GregP]

Yeah, as in, "Raise it up a bit lower!"

 

[NTGray]

Economists predict that we will soon enter a period of negative economic growth.
(I have always loved that expression for its ridiculousness, which they use in all seriousness.)

 

[NTGray]

Yeah, as in, "Raise it up a bit lower!"

Or ". . .and we are now retiring at high speed toward the Japanese." --Admiral Halsey.

 

[GrauGeist]

Or ". . .and we are now retiring at high speed toward the Japanese." --Admiral Halsey.

Or to quote Gen. Smith (1 MarDiv, USMC) at Chosin:
"Retreat Hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction!"

 

[33k in the air]

Or to quote Gen. Smith (1 MarDiv, USMC) at Chosin:
"Retreat Hell! We're not retreating, we're just advancing in a different direction!"

"Nuts!" — Brig. Gen. McAuliffe, Dec. 22, 1944